From: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
Date: | 2011-07-29 11:41:43 |
Message-ID: | CANgU5ZfUvsfK-km7kOS+ThxheykU_jWsdD1u9PUC2m_dXxoO0w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
>>Any preferences for the name?
>> connoinh
>> conisonly
>> constatic or confixed
>
> I'd probably pick conisonly from those choices.
>
The use of "\d" inside psql will show ONLY constraints without any
embellishments similar to normal constraints. E.g.
ALTER TABLE ONLY a ADD CONSTRAINT achk CHECK (FALSE);
ALTER TABLE a ADD CONSTRAINT bchk CHECK (b > 0);
psql=# \d a
Table "public.a"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
b | integer |
Check constraints:
"achk" CHECK (false)
"bchk" CHECK (b > 0)
Is this acceptable? Or we need to put in work into psql to show ONLY
somewhere in the description? If yes, ONLY CHECK sounds weird, maybe
we should use LOCAL CHECK or some such mention:
Check constraints:
"achk" LOCAL CHECK (false)
"bchk" CHECK (b > 0)
Regards,
Nikhils
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-29 12:19:04 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-29 09:37:06 | Re: XMLATTRIBUTES vs. values of type XML |